Search This Blog

Everything is about the Science of it, and technology. World "leaders" want to create robotic thinkers without emotional/spiritual origin, but that is not possible. Emotionalism is tied to creativity, and is attached to the human spirit--there is no shame in that. Without it we are dead, hence: the obsession with zombies. Art, Music, and Literature nourish our souls, there is no other way but to allay our emotions through these creative avenues.

Here are my thoughts indeed, in word, in and upon my integrity....thereby one notes: this is the woman who is. But are words that potent?

Again, as in the past, I am presenting the same argument, that of:

The Pen is mightier than the Sword,

for if we look at the building of a city; the growth of a population, the pulling down of strongholds, and consequently the debris in life, the various culminations of societies and the edge of their power, dissipated into chaos and contradictions of integrity, and ultimately in wars, and devastation--it is because somewhere, at some time, someone has laid down words, some words, Words that cut, and change minds, and make mincemeat out of men because their thoughts, their beliefs, their integrity has come to a crossroads, and they left their integrity un-intact, their sea of beliefs loosely wading in the tides of ideas, and questioned their integrity, and thereby their position, and hence: the PEN has changed them.

Therefore, as I have spoken before, the old adage:

Sticks and stones can break my bones,

but WORDS will never hurt me,

is not true. Words WILL hurt all of us, whether we choose to admit it or not, if we allow them to change the good in us. Words can also soothe. My point? Words Are POTENT, but it is not merely the words but the mind behind the use of the words. Hence, WORDS are potent, and need to be respected as much as a firearm; as much as a sword...MORESO. Words are the "leaven, that leavens the whole lump." Words create motion in the minds and souls of human beings....unless, you are astute enough to know when to allow it to be, or not.

It is the act of words, written, that we take action by them, and one points out that action was taken far before words, say.....in oral history. True. But even in oral history, there are a form of words SAID, perhaps not written, but SAID, that move mountains as well as men. Words. Written words cause people to saturate the meaning into their beings, if people are unaware of the power of them. Which is why we as a population of people in a society--look at any society--when economic times become rough, we take to searching for words that will comfort, educate, inform us of our next move--how then, shall we proceed, we ask ourselves, because we are so geared toward words, words of authority, simply by being written; simply by being said--in the appropriate context.

Now every word written should be scrutinized. There are words, and there are WORDS. Words can be manipulative in the hands of the wrong person. Words can be addictive in yet another wrong person, if there be no other rhyme or reason to them, but to entertain ONLY, then, sure. We have no worry. But don't be naive. Entertainment is good for the moment, but there is more to it than that. Nothing ever merely entertains without changing one's way of thinking, if one is unaware of the meaning behind what appears to be benign entertainment. Do NOT let anyone tell you it is not true--it is.

The word DIDACTIC, has become a word of manipulation because it is poised in advance to alleviate any guard one uses before reading. In all actuality, it is poised in advance to make you NOT want to read something altogether! While it appears to be helping you, it is rather a manipulative form of nose pulling. By that I mean, whomever says a work is didactic, it is because they do not want you to see the value of the work from the standpoint of the author; they want you to avoid it altogether, because it conflicts with their own set of values. If a work is DIDACTIC, the only thing a reader needs is what a reader needs at all times anyway, to look for the value in the work, to read with one's own system of belief at a heightened awareness, and to read not only in the form of ease, but of serious reflection of the self and the writer. Reading was never meant to be merely FUN; it was meant to be communicative, to offer value of some purporting of a system of belief. It is innate in human beings to share themselves and their way of thinking, through a form of communication. Thereby, everything you read should be read with antennae up.

So those who are opposed to a writing say: "The writer's work here is didactic..." which is to say that the writer is leading the reader into believing whatever the writer wishes the reader to believe, mainly in the form of spiritual guidance. This is not always true--it can be, but it is definitely a case-by-case issue. Every piece of writing is didactic to some degree. Even when we read something written by the religion of the Atheists, telling you God is dead, it is to turn a reader from their belief system. EVERYTHING is didactic, so stop pretending and trying to be politically correct. Read with your heart guarded, you mind shrewd, and your eyes filled with invention as you read what you are reading, so that you can formulate questions to the reading that are important to the system of belief you think you have or do have. And if you have no system you are aware of, you have it, probably from your childhood, whomever raised you. This is your chance to press it up against a work, and decide if it is valuable or not, to you.

At this very moment, I am trying to convince you that my words here are important for you to understand, and it is not a manipulative ploy because I am admitting to it. I DO want you to believe me. I DO believe my self! I know that everything I've read in my lifetime has had some impact on me, whether minute or monumental. At some point in time, my mind and the words I read come face to face with a thought, an idea, a philosophy, even a propaganda of a sort. And at that moment I ask myself: does this fit with what I believe? Does this ring true to me? Is this idea a good one for us all, or is it like poison, will it lead to trouble, or chaos, or is it inventive? Will it hurt others who are weak-minded or uneducated, or whatever! Is it good for us? If I choose the ladder, then I will incorporate it into my system of belief because it fits; then, I will propagate it in my own writing, even perhaps without realizing it--because I believed in it. But if it is not good and I believe it is detrimental to others, as a writer I feel an obligation to respond, not necessarily to the writer personally, but to the work in a critical form, or perhaps in a story or my own set of didactic response to it.

You will note, that even Children's books are not innocent, for the authors will tell you they mean only to entertain the little ones, but there is always a system of belief behind the mind of an author of any kind--not necessarily bad, just a belief system of their own, which seeps into the story, one way or another.

I am not ashamed to admit I have my own system of belief. It has served me well. Only when I fell away from it, did I suffer consequences of mental angst, falling prey to another writer's belief system because I was not prepared to read with my antennae up. I missed the point all these years. I needn't accept their viewpoint, I need only understand it.

What we ought to realize is that given the large population of the world, and given the multitudinous minds in the forum of communications, we are to sift through, identify, and respond from our own center of belief, and respect those others from which we are gathering understanding. Moreover, it is not necessary that each of us "accept" the writer's position, only understand it. With that understanding, and with our own perspective, we may create or invent a compromise, a choice in which both minds can step and proceed toward a larger forum. But the most important point of all, if I did not make it clear, is that we RESPECT others, not only the viewpoints we are politically correct in accepting, we must be intelligent enough to see both sides and respect them both--ours and theirs--and if we cannot agree, respect our differences, and go on. I am reminded of what I was taught as a child, from my Judeo-Christian system of belief, which has proven to me to be the best I can ever hope for. It still rings true to me: